Community Action Program for Children (CAPC): National Program Profile (NPP) Cycle 2

Summary Report, Draft, June 2002

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• Method
• Profile of Projects
• Geographic Area Served
• Number of Geographic Communities Served
• Types of Partners
• Participant Involvement
• Resources
• Program Level Information
• Language of Service
• Cultural Orientation
• Types of Participants
• Main Program Objectives
• Timing of Program Delivery

Introduction

This is the summary report for the Community Action Program for Children (CAPC) National Evaluation Cycle 2 data collection. Data was collected through the use of the National Program Profile (NPP). Slight modifications to the NPP were incorporated after the first complete data collection process and these changes are referenced in the report. Cycle 2 of the National Program Profile collected data for the reporting period October 1, 2000 to March 31, 2001.

Method

NPP packages were sent to all CAPC projects listed as operational and having at least one operational program. In all, 411 NPP packages were distributed for Cycle 2. The completed NPPs were returned to PricewaterhouseCoopers via regional Health Canada program consultants and National Evaluation Team for Children (NETC) members who first reviewed the forms for completeness and accuracy. In total, 405 NPPs were returned, resulting in a response rate of 99%, a five percent increase over Cycle 1. Regional response rates were correspondingly high with only two regions having less than a 100% response: Territories (92%) and Quebec (98%). Table 1 illustrates the total # of projects in each province and the proportion of the total projects located in each province. The largest proportion of projects were in Quebec (53%). The high response rate from all regions means that the proportion of returns used in this analysis reflects the actual proportion of projects in the entire national CAPC.

Table 1: Proportion of Projects Per Region

Throughout this report, all numbers have been rounded to the nearest whole number using standard rounding procedures, excepting Table 1. Numbers totaling less than 1%, have been rounded up to one. The regional category Territories, abbreviated as "Terr" for graphical purposes, is composed of the three northern territories: the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut. The regional category Atlantic, abbreviated as "Atla" for graphical purposes, is composed of the four Atlantic provinces: Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.

Profile of Projects

Although CAPC projects may receive funding from a variety of sources, funding received from CAPC tends to constitute the largest part of their budget. The amount of funding received from CAPC varies primarily as a result of initial Joint Management Committee (JMC)¹ decisions concerning their priorities. Figure 1 illustrates the percentage of CAPC projects at each funding level for fiscal year 2000-01.Although Cycle 1 collected data from the same fiscal year, numbers are slightly different due to an improved response rate. Funding ranged from a project with a low of $5,000 to one with a high of $636,100. The majority of CAPC projects (63%; 253 projects) received less than $100,000 in CAPC funding. A further 29% (116 projects) received between $100,000 and $300,000. The remaining 8% (34 projects) received more than $300,000 in funding.

Funding from the Canadian Prenatal Nutrition Program (CPNP) was reported by 77 of the 405 projects. CPNP funding ranged from a low of $5,445 to a high of $260,472. Beginning with Cycle 2, information on Aboriginal Head Start (AHS) funding was also reported. Four projects reported receiving AHS funding. Funding ranged from a low of $200,000 to a maximum of $285,596.

¹Health Canada manages CAPC with the provinces and territories through Joint Management Committees (JMCs), with representation from Health Canada regional offices and provincial and territorial ministries, as well as representatives from community organizations, as appropriate.

Figure 2 shows annual CAPC funding for fiscal year 2000-01 by region. The largest percentage of projects receiving less than $100,000 in annual funding within a region is within Quebec with 95% (202 projects). In contrast, Ontario has the highest percentage of projects (48%; 19 projects) receiving more than $300,000 in annual funding. No projects in Quebec, Saskatchewan or the Territories received more than $300,000 in annual CAPC funding.

Geographic Area Served

Projects were asked to select the type(s) of geographic area they served in the question: "How would you best define the geographic area that is served by your project?" (Question 2a). Respondents were presented with the categories of urban, rural, isolated, remote and whole province or territory. This was a multiple response question and projects could select as many options as needed to describe the geographic area served. For example, a project could answer that they serve a rural and an urban area. The nature of multiple response questions means that totals may exceed 100%. As shown in Figure 3, 62% of the CAPC projects (253 projects) that returned an NPP indicated they served an urban area and 48% (196 projects) said they served a rural area. Ten percent (39 projects) served an isolated area, described as one with limited road access. Four percent of projects (16 projects) described themselves as serving a remote area, meaning one that is accessible by plane or boat only and a further 5% (20 projects) indicated that they covered a whole province or territory.

Figure 4 presents the geographic area served by projects by region. Projects are predominantly located in urban and rural areas in all regions. British Columbia reported the largest percentage of projects (87%; 20 projects) serving an urban area while the Atlantic region had the largest percentage of projects (77%; 33 projects) serving a rural area. The territories had the highest percentage of isolated (36%; 4 projects) and remote projects (45%; 5 projects). All regions with the exception of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta had projects serving all five types of geographic areas.

Number of Geographic Communities Served

Respondents were also asked about the number of different geographic communities served by their CAPC projects (Question 2b). For the Cycle 2 NPP, communities were split into four different types: neighbourhoods, towns or cities, villages or other rural communities and "Other." Projects were asked to supply a count of the number of each type of community served. For reporting purposes, and to allow for comparison with Cycle 1 data, these numbers were also collapsed into total number of communities served. The answers ranged from a low of one to a high of 125. Figure 5 shows that the responses were fairly evenly split between projects that serve 1-5 communities (53%; 209 projects) and those that serve 6 or more (47%; 187 projects). On average, projects reported serving 7.6 different geographic communities. 

When total communities is broken down into its component geographic communities, "Neighbourhoods" was the least reported category. A total number of 118 projects serve 532 neighbourhoods. Responses ranged from one to 25 neighbourhoods. On average, projects served five neighbourhoods. As shown in Figure 5a, the highest percentage (41%; 49 projects) that answered this question served either one or two neighbourhoods.

"Towns or cities" was the category reported by the largest number of projects. A total number of 221 projects reported serving 770 towns or cities. The number of towns or cities served ranged from one to 47, with an average of three. As shown in Figure 5b, more than half of the projects (55%; 121 projects) that responded to this item indicated that they serve either one or two towns or cities.

Projects that serve a "rural community" seem to draw participants from a larger number of distinct geographic communities. In total, 183 projects reported serving 1,546 villages or other rural communities. Numbers ranged from one to a high of 60, with an average of eight. As shown in Figure 5c, one-third of the 183 responding projects reported that they serve 10 or more villages or other rural communities.

"Other" was chosen by 14 projects. These projects reported serving a total of 187 "Other" communities. The number of "Other" communities ranged from one to 125 with an average of 13. As shown in Figure 5d, over half of all projects (57%; 8 projects) responding to this option said they served either one or two "Other" communities. "Other" communities included such responses as "Administrative regions of Quebec", "Aboriginal reserves or settlements" and "different districts."

Total number of communities served was also examined on a regional basis. As shown in Figure 6, British Columbia (48%; 11 projects), the Atlantic region (45%; 19 projects) and Ontario (40%; 16 projects) reported the highest percentage of projects serving 10 or more communities. On the other extreme, Manitoba had the highest percentage (54% ; 7 projects) of projects reporting that they served one or two communities, followed by Saskatchewan (44%; 14 projects) and the Territories (36%; 4 projects).

Figure 7 shows the total number of communities served by projects according to the amount of CAPC funding they received annually. Projects receiving less than $100,000 in annual funding had the greatest proportion of projects serving one or two communities (38%; 93 projects). Projects receiving more than $300,000 in annual funding reported 13 projects (38%) providing service to 10 or more communities.

Types of Partners

Projects were asked to identify the different types of organizations with which they currently partner (i.e., those that contributed to the management, coordination and/or delivery of the project (Question 3). Twenty options were provided as well as an "Other" category. Three additional categories (Local/Municipal Government, Libraries/Literacy groups, and Food Banks/Clothing Exchanges) have been added since Cycle 1. This was a multiple response question so totals may exceed 100%. As shown in Figure 8,the top three partners have remained the same from Cycle 1: "Health Organizations"; "Educational Institutions"; and "Neighbourhood or Community Organizations." The partner type indicated by the greatest proportion of projects was "Health Organizations," which was cited by 336 projects (86%).

"Municipal/Local Governments" was cited as a partner by 33% (130 projects) of the projects. "Food Bank/Clothing Exchanges" was a partner to 29% (112) of projects. "Library/Literacy groups" was a partner for 27% (107) of the projects. The types of partners included under "Other" were organizations such as: Human Resource Development Canada; museums and zoos; organizations for those dealing with addictions; and, training groups.

Projects were also asked to provide the number of partners that they worked with during the reporting period (Question 4). In total, the 399 CAPC projects that answered this question had 5,067 partners. The average number of partners reported was 13, which is up slightly from Cycle 1. As shown in Figure 9, the largest single group of projects (37%; 147 projects) reported having between one and five partners and 9% (34 projects) reported having 31 or more partners.

The number of partners reported by projects was also examined on the basis of CAPC funding. As shown in Figure 10, projects with a smaller number of partners tend to be those receiving less than $100,000 in annual CAPC funding and projects with more partners tend to receive more CAPC funding. Eighty-seven percent of projects (127 projects) with one to five partners received less than $100,000 in CAPC funding. In contrast, of the projects with more than 31 partners, 76% (36 projects) received more than $100,000 in annual funding.

When examining the number of project partners by region, no strong patterns appear although there are some differences between the regions. As shown in Figure 11, a majority of projects in Quebec (56%; 116 projects) have between one and five partners. On the other hand, a large number of projects in British Columbia (43%) reported having 31 or more partners.

As shown in Figure 12, more than one-half of all projects (56%; 68 projects) reporting that they served one to two geographic communities in total have less than five partners, while only 6% (29 projects) serving one or two communities had more than 21 partners.

Participant Involvement

Projects were asked how current and past participants contributed to project management and/or delivery (Question 5). Participants were defined as someone who takes part (or has taken part) in a CAPC program. Projects were presented with six options as well as an open-ended "Other." The options were as follows:

1. Informal opportunities to express their views or opinions about the project or its programs;
2. Formal opportunities to express their views or opinions about the project or its programs (through channels such as interviews, surveys, focus groups);
3. Playing a volunteer role in the delivery of the programs (for example, by making snacks for other participants, by leading group sessions);
4. Direct involvement in a committee or group that provides advice to the project's governing body;
5. Direct involvement in making decisions about the project or its programs (for example, by sitting on the project's governing body);
6. Not applicable to their situation and/or participants did not contribute to the management and/or delivery of the project or its programs.

Figure 13 displays the information on the types of participant involvement reported by projects. Projects were allowed to select multiple responses, so numbers may exceed 100%. Five percent (18 projects) indicated that their participants do not contribute to the management and/or delivery of the project or its programs or that this question was not applicable to their situation.

Similar to the results of the Cycle 1 NPP, the proportion of projects reporting some type of participant involvement decreases as the level of involvement deepens. The exception is with participation directly through a committee and participation directly through the governing body, which are inversed. The greatest number of projects (86%) listed "informal" as the type of participant involvement offered by their project. Slightly more than half (53%) reported that participants were directly involved through a governing body.

The first five types of participant involvement may also be grouped into two categories: "delivery" of project and "management" of project. "Delivery" would consist of option three (playing a volunteer role in the delivery of the project), while "management" would include all four of the remaining options, all of which deal with some aspect of the management of the project. Sixty-three percent of projects (257 projects) reported that participants had a role in the delivery of programs. Taking the 18 projects that answered not applicable into consideration, all but one project reported that participants had some role in project management when viewing the complete continuum.

Taken further, the four management options can also be viewed as a continuum of participation in the management of a project. Participation in the management ranges from the least amount of involvement to the greatest amount of involvement. In Figure 14, projects have been graphed based on the highest point on the continuum they reported: level 1 means participants were given informal opportunities to express their views about the project; level 2 means participants were given formal opportunities to express their views about the project; level 3 means participants were directly involved through a committee or sub-group that provides management advice; and level 4 means that participants were directly involved in making decisions about management. Just over half of the projects (56%; 215 projects) reported that participants were directly involved in making decisions about management.

Figure 15 shows the breakdown of participant involvement by region. In all regions, the majority of projects offer both informal and formal opportunities to participate. In all regions, with the exception of Quebec, the majority of projects offer a volunteer role in the delivery of the project.

Respondents were also asked about the proportion of their project's governing body composed of current or past participants (Question 6). As shown in Figure 16 below, 33% (71) of the projects reported that more than 50% of their governing bodies were made up of current or past participants. The largest single group of projects, 35% (75 projects), reported that between 25% and 50% of their governing body was composed of current or past participants.

Resources

Projects were asked to report on the number of CAPC-funded staff members who work in a typical week (Question 7a). This question was intended to establish the actual number of people working for pay in CAPC projects. In total, there are 2,170 CAPC-funded staff members working for pay in CAPC projects in a typical week. Answers ranged from a low of one to a high of 70. The average number of funded staff members reported was five. As shown in Figure 17a, 52% of projects (211 projects) reported one to three CAPC-funded staff members.

In the Cycle 2 NPP questionnaire, projects were asked for the first time about any additional individuals who were paid using CAPC funds (Question 7b). This question was developed in order to account for those individuals who are not project staff but who work on the project or its programs, such as students or evaluators. In total, 215 projects reported 600 additionally-funded individuals, or an average of three per project. As shown in Figure 17b, over three-quarters of projects (79%; 169 projects) reported between one and three additionally-funded individuals.

Projects were also asked how many paid staff hours were funded by CAPC in a typical week (Question 8) in order to determine the number of full-time equivalents (FTEs). For the purpose of analysis, one FTE is equal to 37.5 hours a week. Responses range from a low of less than one FTE, to a high of 21 FTEs. In total, 1,086 paid staff FTEs were reported. The average number of paid staff FTEs reported was 2.7 FTEs.

As shown in Figure 18, the single largest category is 0 to 1.99 FTEs, which accounts for 54% (218 projects). The discrepancy between the number of paid staff members (figure 17a) and the number of FTEs indicates that projects tend to have staff members working less than a full 37.5 hour week, either choosing to split one FTE between two or more employees, or having a single staff member work part-time.

In addition to information on CAPC funding, projects were also asked about monies received sources other than CAPC, CPNP or AHS (Question 9). As presented in Figure 19, slightly more than half of the projects (51%; 206 projects) reported receiving money from other sources.

In total, 206 projects reported receiving $6,511,502 in other monies for the reporting period. Monies reported by individual projects ranged from a low of $150.00 to a high of $437,586.00. Projects reported receiving an average of $31,609 in funding from non-CAPC/CPNP/AHS sources. These additional funds were received from various sources including other federal government programs, provincial/territorial governments, municipal/regional governments and others (e.g. United Way, foundations, fund raising activities, businesses and individuals). In total, 40 projects reported receiving $493,380 in other federal government funding. In the case of provincial or territorial government funding, 113 projects reported receiving a total of $2,358,279. A total of $2,196,566 in municipal/regional government funding was reported by 67 projects. Finally, the 141 projects that received "Other" funding reported receiving a total of $1,463,277.

Figure 20 displays the information on money from other sources by region. Manitoba has the largest percentage of projects (71%; 10 projects) receiving money from other sources.

The NPP also collected information on non-monetary donations (Question 11). These "in-kind" donations included items such as facilities, office supplies, office equipment, for example. As illustrated in Figure 21, an even greater majority of projects (73%) reported receiving some form of in-kind donations. Projects were asked to estimate the dollar value of these in-kind donations (Question 12). In total, 295 projects reported receiving $3,111,947 in in-kind donations. The amount of in-kind donations ranged from $50.00 to a high of $91,420, with an average amount reported of $10,549.

Projects were asked whether any individuals or organizations donated hours to any part of the project (Question 13). Figure 22 illustrates that a strong majority of projects (88%) reported receiving donated hours. Projects were also asked to estimate the total number of hours of work donated to the project in a typical month (Question 14). In total, 356 projects reported receiving 64,532 hours of donated work from 8,781 people in a typical month. Donated hours ranged from three hours to a high of 1,821 reported by one project and the number of people donating time to projects ranged from one person to the 415 reported by one project.

Total number of hours donated was created by collapsing three sources of donated hours: "CAPC participant volunteers," "Staff from partner organizations," and "Other people who donated time." Comparing these three sources of donated hours to one another reveals that the largest source of donated hours is "CAPC participant volunteers." A total of 3,984 "CAPC participant volunteers" were responsible for 24,664 in donated hours. On average, projects reported 13 "CAPC participant volunteers" and 84 volunteer hours in a typical month. In comparison, 2,421 "Staff from partner organizations" were responsible for 19,642 in donated hours. Finally, 2,376 other volunteers donated a total of 20,219 in a typical month.

Program Level Information

The NPP consists of two sections: a project level section and a program level section. All projects received one project level section and as many program level sections as they had programs. In total, the 405 projects provided information on 1,790 operational programs during the Cycle 2 data collection period. Information on programs per region is presented in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Programs by Region

Language of Service

Information on language of service delivery was gathered at the program level because projects could provide multiple programs delivered in different languages. Projects were asked "In what language or languages is this program offered?" (Question 15). As projects could select more than one language per program, totals may exceed 100%. As shown in Figure 23, while the majority of programs (75%; 1,323 programs) were delivered in English, more than one-third of programs (37%; 651 programs) were delivered in French. Programs offered in "Other" and Aboriginal languages accounted for 7% and 5% of the total, respectively. Concerning the number of programs delivered in Aboriginal languages, it needs to be stated that this total excludes the 56 Aboriginal CAPC projects in Ontario which are conducting an evaluation separate from the national evaluation. The most commonly reported "Other" languages were Spanish, Chinese and Vietnamese. The most commonly reported Aboriginal languages were Cree, Dene and Innu.

Figure 24 examines the language of program by region. As shown, the predominant program language in all regions, with the exception of Quebec, is English. Within Quebec, the dominant program language is French (97%; 477 programs). Programs offered in Aboriginal languages are located primarily in the Prairie provinces and the Territories. This reaches a high of 41% in Saskatchewan (39 programs). Programs offered in other languages are located primarily in Ontario and British Columbia, although the Territories and Quebec, Alberta, Manitoba and Atlantic each have a small number of programs offered in other languages.

Cultural Orientation

In order to demonstrate the cultural diversity of CAPC programs, projects were asked whether their individual programs were attended by one or more particular cultural groups (Question 16). Although the intent of this question has remained the same, the wording has changed since Cycle 1 when projects were asked if programs were designed to serve one or more cultural groups. It was expected that the wording change from Cycle 1 to 2 would have a significant effect on the numbers reported (Figure 25).

About half of the programs reported they were attended by one or more particular cultural groups (51%; 908 programs). This is a significant increase over the 18% of programs (311 programs) that reported during Cycle 1 that they were designed to serve particular cultural groups. It is important to remember that 56 Aboriginal projects in Ontario did not participate in this evaluation.

As part of the question dealing with cultural orientation of attendees, programs were asked about the type of culture, including Aboriginal and "Other" cultures. "Other" cultures were defined as "Other than Canadian-born." Programs could select more than one option so they could report a program attended by Aboriginal people and members of other cultural groups (Figure 25a). Twenty percent of programs were attended by members of other cultures (350 programs). The most commonly reported "Other" cultural groups were Latin/South American, African and South Asian. A smaller number of programs (17%; 306 programs) reported that they were attended by members of Aboriginal cultural groups. The most commonly reported Aboriginal groups were Métis, Cree and M'kmaq.

Figure 26 illustrates the percentage of programs attended by one or more particular cultural groups by region. The region with the greatest percentage of programs attended by one or more particular cultural groups was the Territories, with 97% (32 programs), followed by Saskatchewan (94%; 88 programs). The region reporting the lowest percentage is Quebec with 26% (127 programs).

In Cycle 1, the problems with this question were illustrated by the low numbers reported by Ontario (11%; 35 programs) and the Atlantic region (3%; 14 programs) in particular. These numbers were felt to be artificially low given immigration levels to Ontario and the percentage of Aboriginal people in the Atlantic region. It appears that these concerns have largely been addressed with the change in wording. Ontario now reports that 60% of programs are attended by one or more cultural groups (192 programs), while the Atlantic region is at 35% (161 programs). Again, the Ontario numbers would be even larger if not for the separate evaluation of the 56 Aboriginal projects and their programs.

Types of Participants

Projects were asked about the types of participants served by their programs (Question 17). Respondents were provided with four main groups of participants and asked to select the sub-group that best describes the participants in their programs.

The four main groups included:

1. Parents, caregivers and the children under their care;
2. Parents and caregivers (without the children under their care);
3. Pregnant women and/or pregnant teens; and,
4. Children and/or youth.

Information on types of participants was provided for a total of 1,689 programs because not all programs directly serve participants. As shown in Figure 27, "parents and caregivers and the children under their care" participate in the majority of CAPC programs (59%; 1,002 programs).

The programs with children and youth as participants, either alone or with their parents or caregivers (including those currently pregnant), were also asked to provide the ages of the children in their programs (Question 17B). A range of ages was provided and projects could select as many as applied, so numbers may total more than 100%. It must also be considered that for some regions, Quebec and Manitoba in particular, program participants can include children beyond the age of six.

As shown in Figure 28, the two largest age groups served by CAPC programs is three (1,051 programs) and four (1,056 programs) years of age with 85%.

Main Program Objectives

Projects were asked to outline the three main objectives of their individual programs (Question 18). Respondents could select from among 20 different supplied options, including "Other," which allows projects to supply their own unique objective if it is not among the choices provided. Since this was a multiple response question, totals may exceed 100%. As demonstrated in Figure 29, "improve parenting skills and/or improve parent-child relationships" was the most frequently mentioned objective - 58% (1,030 programs) of programs reported that this was one of their top three main objectives. The other two objectives in the top three include "decrease social isolation/increase social network" and "improve understanding of child development".

Main Ways of Program Delivery

Projects were asked to outline the main methods by which programs were delivered (Question 19). Projects were provided with a list of 21 methods of delivery (including an "Other" option) and asked to select the three main methods. As with all multiple response questions, the numbers may total more than 100%. The most popular methods of program delivery were, in order, "classes", "child-focused activities", and "parent support groups/discussion groups or meetings". Figure 30 illustrates the main methods of delivery for CAPC programs. "Classes" rose slightly from second place in Cycle 1 to first place with Cycle 2, but this is not surprising since two Cycle 1 categories "formal classes" and "informal classes" were combined into the one for Cycle 2.

Timing of Program Delivery

Due to the various cycles of operation of CAPC programs, projects were asked to list the season(s) in which individual programs were offered (Question 20). Any program that was not offered in all four seasons was considered to be seasonal. Figure 31 shows that the majority of CAPC programs (55%; 981 programs) were offered all year and 45% (787 programs) were seasonal.

Figure 32 indicates a further breakdown of information reported for seasonal programs only. Since this was a multiple response question, numbers will total to more than 100%. As expected, for those programs that operate seasonally, the large majority offered programs in the fall, winter and spring. Only 1% of seasonal programs were operational during the summer (11 programs). This is most likely related to the six-month reporting period used for this cycle of data (October 1 - March 31) rather than a representation of the true number of programs operational during the summer months.

Intensity of Programs

A number of questions contained within the NPP were designed to lead to a better understanding of the various cycles of operation and levels of intensity of CAPC programs. In addition to the seasonal aspect of delivery, programs were asked about the average number of hours per month a single participant would have been involved (Question 22). The intent of this question was to determine the intensity of involvement for an average participant. Figure 33 displays the results of this question.

In total, programs reported 19,314 hours per month of participant involvement. Responses ranged from a low of half an hour per month to 160 hours per month. The average number of hours per month that a single participant would have been involved in a program was calculated as 12.5 hours. The median number of hours was eight.

Projects were also asked about the number of weeks in total a single participant would have been involved in a program (Question 21). This question has changed since the Cycle 1 NPP when the focus was on the average number of weeks within the 26-week reporting period. The question is still designed to determine the duration of involvement for an average participant. Responses ranged from one week to 420 weeks, which translates into more than eight years. The mean number of weeks of participant involvement reported was 31.9 weeks. On the other hand, the median number of weeks was 22. As shown through Figure 34, if we collapse categories further, more than half of the programs were attended by a single participant for 24 or fewer weeks.

Projects were asked two questions about the number of participants per program. Projects were asked to estimate the number of different children who participate in each program in a typical month (Question 23). Information was not provided or not applicable for 558 programs. Responses ranged from a low of one to a high of 800 children. The mean number of child participants per month per program was 44, with a median of 24. Programs reported a total of 53,872 different child participants in a typical month. Figure 35 shows that 21% of the programs had between one and 10 child participants per month.

Projects were also asked to estimate the number of different parents and caregivers who participate in each program in a typical month (Question 24). Information was not provided or was not applicable for 280 programs. Responses ranged from a low of one to a high of 1,200 parents and caregivers per month. The total number of different parent and caregiver participants in a typical month was 48,721. The mean number of parent and caregiver participants per program in a typical month was 32, with a median of 18. As shown in Figure 36, 34% of programs reported between 11 and 25 different adult participants in a typical month.

The information on child and adult program participants was also collapsed into an overall category of total participants. Information was not available for 94 programs. Programs reported a total of 102,593 participants in a typical month. The mean number of total participants per program in a typical month was 60, and the median number was 30. Figure 37 shows the total number of participants per program in a typical month.

Table 3 shows the information on program participants by region. The three regions with the most program participants are Atlantic, Ontario and Quebec. Ontario accounts for the largest single percentage of child participants (27%), while the Atlantic region accounts for the largest single percentage (29%) of parent and caregiver participants (defined as adult in the table).

Table 3: Program Participants by Region

Note: Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding.